Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy - New York

The Center - New York, founded in 2000, is an environmental organization dedicated to protecting the environment, enhancing human, animal and plant ecologies, promoting the efficient use of natural resources and expanding participation in the environmental movement.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Exelon Corp. agreed to purchase the FitzPatrick nuclear plant for $110 million only after New York regulators agreed to subsidize the facility and two other Exelon nuclear plants to help the state achieve its carbon-reduction goals. Payments for the first two years of the 12-year program will total almost $1 billion.

Exelon, the beneficiary of almost $500 million in annual payments, is airing its legal defenses.

James FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

Chicago-based Exelon Corp., owner of the R.E. Ginna and Nine Mile Point plants and the soon-to-be-owner of a third plant, James A. FitzPatrick has vetted all of the potential arguments its opponents could raise and its defense is airtight.

Exelon and the New York's Public Service Commission (NYPSC) are in agreement. The NYPSC designed the policy to avoid specific legal tripwires. Experts say there's likely to be a court challenge anyway, if only because of the money at stake and the precedent it could establish. If it survives, the plan could be a blueprint for other states to achieve the same policy goals, even after similar efforts have been blocked by judges and regulators.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Maryland incentive program for new gas-fired generation because it strayed too far into federal jurisdiction over wholesale electricity markets (Greenwire, April 19). And the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission blocked a plan approved by Ohio regulators to subsidize utility-owned coal and nuclear plants because it clashed with affiliate transaction rules (EnergyWire, April 28).

The New York PSC approved its clean energy standard (CES) on Aug. 1, formalizing the state's goal of getting half its power from renewable energy by 2030. Toward that end, the CES will subsidize three nuclear power plants, giving more time for wind and solar power to develop in New York.

Despite nuclear's place as a carbon-free source of bulk power, some environmental groups, rival generators and consumer groups are pushing back against the subsidy, and any or all of them could launch legal challenges. Those could come at the PSC, New York Supreme Court or FERC.

A court ruling validates the use of the U.S. government's Interagency Working Group's "social cost of carbon. In its order, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of the government's estimate for carbon's economic damage in a challenge to new Department of Energy standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (Greenwire, Aug. 9).

The ruling demonstrates that the social cost of carbon isn't "funny science." New York's zero-emissions credit (ZEC) program will be administered in six two-year periods, and electricity retailers will purchase credits from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in proportion to their load. During the first two-year, three nuclear plants will receive payments under a formula based on the social cost of carbon and the megawatt-hours of energy they produce.

The most important consideration regarding potential legal challenges to the plan is that it's "indistinguishable" from renewable energy credit (REC) programs that have been "blessed" by the states and the courts. Just as an REC represents the environmental attributes of a megawatt-hour of wind or solar energy, a ZEC is the same for nuclear energy.

It is a REC program for nuclear. It's a credit that's tied to production, not wholesale market participation. Nowhere in the country has an REC program, on the theories that have been advanced now, ever been successfully challenged. FERC in an order four years ago said REC programs and sales of RECs unbundled with electricity fall outside its jurisdiction.

In its final order, New York's PSC said it had legal authority to approve the clean energy standard and, moreover, that it had been designed to avoid FERC's turf. The order, however, noted: "States may encourage production of new or clean generation through measures 'untethered' to a generator's wholesale market participation."

Regulators moved quickly to finalize the clean energy standard. Entergy Corp., the owner of FitzPatrick, planned to shut the plant in January. Exelon was willing to buy it and add to its nuclear fleet, but it wanted clarity about what their economics would be.

The purchase remains contingent on approvals from state and federal regulators. In the meantime, Exelon will refuel the plant in January if certain conditions are met, including the clean energy standard being in full effect and the execution of an NYSERDA contract that guarantees an additional income stream.

On July 8, the state Department of Public Service proposed its plan to rescue the nuclear plants with ZECs. The plan contemplated nearly $1 billion in subsidies for the first two years. It said the $4 billion net benefit, largely from cutting carbon, was worth it. Regulators took public comments for two weeks and issued a final order on Aug. 1.

Opponents said the process moved too fast given the high stakes. They've said it's dubious to peg the subsidy to the social cost of carbon, and that it will lead to burdensome costs for large energy users, like manufacturers. And some environmentalists have objected to any support for nuclear power in a policy meant to advance renewable energy.

A group of upstate manufacturers submitted a 35-page brief objecting to aspects of the CES. But a lawyer for the group said he had no comment on a suit. Another group of merchant power plants, including Calpine Corp., said in a filing last month that the CES was a plain step into FERC jurisdiction. But the group did not comment with regard to a legal challenge.

Experts said it's only been two weeks, so these suits are probably still in the works.

Parties have 30 days to petition the PSC for a rehearing, said Jon Sorensen, a spokesman for the Department of Public Service. They have four months to challenge a decision at the New York Supreme Court.

At FERC, parties could lodge a complaint at any time.

Some parties question how regulators set the amount of the nuclear subsidy. At first, it was based on the cost of running the reactors. They ultimately decided to use the social cost of carbon.

Whether the recent appellate court ruling validates the social cost of carbon metric, some critics say the PSC staff didn't allow enough time (two weeks) for parties to vet the formula.

According to the National Energy Marketers Association (NEMA), the PSC's timetable violated the state's Administrative Procedure Act.

Exelon is also bracing for challenges that claim the PSC strayed too far into FERC's jurisdiction.

Calpine joined a group of power generators that last month cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing LLC and said New York is making the same mistake Maryland did: interfering with wholesale power markets. But some lawyers say New York might have avoided this legal trap by using a different mechanism to support power plants.

In Hughes, Maryland was focused on the money that would be needed to prop up companies, to help them survive in the face of changing markets. New York's final CES decision does what it can to stay away from that approach; instead, it focuses on properly valuing the low-carbon attributes of nuclear plants separate from the wholesale markets.

The April court order was carefully crafted to leave states room to craft their own policies. It was clear the Supreme Court wanted to reserve the option for states that were trying to tackle clean energy policy to have a way to do that. (E&E Publishing, 8/19/2016)

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Exelon Generation, owner of the nation’s largest nuclear fleet, has agreed to assume ownership and management of operations of Entergy Corporation’s James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Scriba, NY.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who asked the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) to adopt a Clean Energy Standard (CES) benefitting the state’s nuclear power plants, helped facilitate the transaction.

In recent months, Entergy and Exelon began discussing a path forward that would allow the plant to continue operating beyond January 2017. The CES, approved last week, will save thousands of high-paying jobs and spur hundreds of millions of dollars in short-term investments in energy infrastructure in upstate New York. Without the CES, upstate nuclear plants would have been at risk of closure.

Under the agreement totaling $110 million, Entergy would transfer FitzPatrick’s operating license to Exelon. The New York Power Authority has agreed to transfer the decommissioning trust fund and liability for FitzPatrick to Entergy, and if regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction closes, Entergy would then transfer the fund and associated liability to Exelon. Transaction closure is dependent upon regulatory review and approval by state and federal agencies, including the US Department of Justice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the New York State Public Service Commission.

The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2017.
As Exelon has previously indicated, approval of the CES means the company will reinvest millions right back into the upstate economy, including approximately $400-500 million in operations, integration and refueling expenditures for the upstate plants in spring of 2017, all of which will have a positive impact across the state.

Exelon has committed to refueling FitzPatrick in January 2017 and does not anticipate any immediate change to staffing levels at the plant, which normally employs about 600 people.
Acquiring FitzPatrick aligns with Exelon’s broader efforts to preserve the nation’s existing nuclear energy facilities and the economic, environmental and reliability benefits they provide. New York’s nuclear plants power millions of homes and businesses.

Replacing economically challenged nuclear units with carbon-based generation would significantly increase emissions in the state, making it far more difficult and expensive for customers and the state to meet their emissions reduction goals. The transaction also aligns with Entergy's strategy of reducing its merchant power market footprint.

The 838-megawatt James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant generates carbon-free electricity for more than 800,000 homes and businesses.
Exelon operates two other nuclear energy facilities in upstate New York: R.E. Ginna and Nine Mile Point, the latter of which is adjacent to FitzPatrick. Together, Exelon’s two upstate plants provide carbon-free electricity to more than 2.5 million homes and businesses while employing more than 1,500 full-time staff. (Entergy Newsroom, 8/9/2016)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the New York State Public Service Commission's approval of New York’s Clean Energy Standard, the most comprehensive and ambitious clean energy mandate in the state's history, to fight climate change, reduce harmful air pollution, and ensure a diverse and reliable energy supply. The Clean Energy Standard will require 50 percent of New York's electricity to come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2030, with an aggressive phase in schedule over the next several years. In its initial phase, utilities and other energy suppliers will be required to procure and phase in new renewable power resources starting with 26.31 percent of the state's total electricity load in 2017 and grow to 30.54 percent of the statewide total in 2021. The Clean Energy Standard will cost less than $2 a month to the average residential customer’s bill.

The Clean Energy Standard will:

· Significantly reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and prevent backsliding on progress made to date by maintaining the operations of carbon-free nuclear power plants as the state transitions to a 50 percent renewable requirement; and,

· Strengthen New York’s electric fuel diversity for the reliability benefits it brings. The Clean Energy Standard also places New York as a leader of the global effort to combat climate change and the resulting extreme weather events.

By 2030, the 50 percent renewable mandate will be a critical component in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent (from 1990 levels) and by 80 percent by 2050.

The Clean Energy Standard will be enforced by requiring utilities and other energy suppliers to obtain a targeted number of Renewable Energy Credits each year. These credits will be paid to renewable developers to help finance new renewable energy sources that will be added to the electric grid.

The Clean Energy Standard decision today also includes other directives to reach the 50 by 2030 mandate:

· The Public Service Commission will work with New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and stakeholders to develop the content and standards that could be used to create a New York-certified clean electric product. This product will be clearly labeled and identified as New York-based clean power giving consumers the ability to buy 100 percent clean power, should they want that option.

· The Public Service Commission will promote and support maximum expansion of energy efficiency wherever possible and evaluate the creation of renewable heating and cooling technologies such as geothermal heat pumps.

· The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority will develop a blueprint to advance offshore wind energy, a report already in progress by the Authority.

· Public Service Commission Staff will work with the NYISO and other stakeholders to ensure that necessary investments are made in storage, transmission and other technologies to secure a reliable electric system.

· The Public Service Commission will requires triennial reviews of the Clean Energy Standard by the Public Service Commission to ensure economic and clean energy goals are being achieved.

Click here to view statements from organizations which are applauding and endorsing New York State's adoption of the Clean Energy Standard.

Maintaining zero-emission nuclear power is a critical element to achieving New York’s ambitious climate goals. Starting in April 2017, the Clean Energy Standard requires all six New York investor-owned utilities and other energy suppliers to pay for the intrinsic value of carbon-free emissions from nuclear power plants by purchasing Zero-Emission Credits. The New York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority are also expected to adopt the same requirements. This will allow financially-struggling upstate nuclear power plants to remain in operation during New York’s transition to 50 percent renewables by 2030.

A growing number of climate scientists have warned that if these nuclear plants were to abruptly close, carbon emissions in New York will increase by more than 31 million metric tons during the next two years, resulting in public health and other societal costs of at least $1.4 billion.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Entergy aims to sell FitzPatrick nuclear plant by mid-August

Entergy Corp. has confirmed that it is negotiating to sell the FitzPatrick nuclear plant in Oswego County to Exelon Corp. Entergy said it will close the plant in January, as previously announced, if the sale cannot be completed.

Entergy said in a news release that it aims to complete the negotiations with Exelon by mid-August. The transaction depends on approval by the New York Public Service Commission of a new nuclear subsidy program that was proposed Friday as part of the state's clean energy standard.

The proposed nuclear subsidy program, estimated at $482 million a year split between FitzPatrick and three other nuclear reactors in Upstate New York, still faces review by the commission. The PSC scheduled a brief 10-day period for public comments on the proposal, which would allow the commission to consider it at its Aug. 1 meeting.

Entergy announced in November 2015 that it would close FitzPatrick in January 2017 because the plant loses money. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose administration helped facilitate the negotiations, issued a statement today applauding the developments.

A sale to Exelon would require regulatory approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others before it could be finalized.That process is likely to take nine months to a year, company officials said. Entergy said it will begin preparations for both of the plant's possible futures -- a shutdown, or continued operation and sale. (Syracuse .com, 7/13/2016)

Monday, July 11, 2016

State utility regulators today released a proposal to subsidize Upstate nuclear plants with annual payments totaling an estimated $482 million a year. The public has a brief opportunity to comment -- until July 18 – an indication that the PSC is likely to rule on the proposal at its Aug. 1 meeting.

Note: Only Nine Mile Point and Ginna have one cooling tower each.

Exelon Corp., which owns three of the four Upstate nuclear reactors, recently told the commission that the oldest two facilities might close unless subsidies were approved by September. The proposal unveiled recommends that the PSC sign 12-year agreements with nuclear operators, as Exelon had previously recommended.
The subsidies would be set administratively by the PSC.

According to estimates provided in the proposal, the subsidies would start at $17.48 per megawatt-hour for the first two years and rise gradually to $29.15 per MWH in years 11 and 12.
At the expected combined output of 27.6 million MWH for the Upstate nukes, the total cost would be up to $482 million a year during the first two years, rising to $805 million per year for the final two years.

Those estimates appear to anticipate the continued operation of the FitzPatrick plant, which is scheduled to close in January 2017. FitzPatrick typically accounts for more than 20 percent of the Upstate nuclear output.
The subsidies are based on wholesale electric prices of about $39 per MWH. If future prices rise above that level, as the PSC staff expects, the subsidies will decrease commensurately.

The PSC staff argues that the cost, which would be borne by utility ratepayers, would be dwarfed by the benefits of preserving reliable sources of carbon-free electricity. The staff proposal estimates that continued operation of the nuclear plants provides benefits of at least $2.5 billion a year, including the societal benefit of preventing additional carbon emissions plus other positive impacts such as jobs and property tax payments provided by the nukes.

Nuclear operators have complained that wholesale electric prices are too low in Upstate New York to sustain the cost of operating nuclear plants. Entergy Corp. announced last fall that it would close the 850-megawatt FitzPatrick plant in Scriba in January 2017.
Exelon told the PSC last month that the 620-megawatt Nine Mile 1 reactor in Scriba and the 580-MW Ginna nuclear plant in Wayne County might close next year too unless subsidies are approved soon. Nine Mile 1 is scheduled to be refueled next spring, a $55 million expense Exelon might forego if the plant is still losing money, company officials said.

According to a study by The Brattle Group, paid for by Exelon and Upstate Energy Jobs, the four nuclear power reactors in Upstate New York are responsible for $3 billion in economic activity and nearly 25,000 jobs. (Syracuse. com, 7/8/2016)

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) reported today that electricity supplies in New York State are expected to be adequate to meet forecasted
demand this summer. New York has sufficient statewide generating capacity and other power resources to serve forecasted levels of
demand for electricity.

After several years of declining margins in surplus resources, there has been a rebound in
the addition of generation. In particular, power plants are returning to service or upgrading their capacity in the
high-demand region of southeastern New York,

The NYISO forecasts that New York’s 2015 summer peak demand will reach 33,567 megawatts (MW). Last
year’s moderate summer weather produced a peak of 29,782 MW, the lowest since 2004. The 2014 peak
occurred in September, far later in the summer season than usual.
This year’s forecasted summer peak is below the all-time peak demand, which was set in 2013 when a
weeklong heat wave led to record-breaking power consumption of 33,956 MW on July 19.

Peak demand is a measurement of the average total electric demand by consumers for a one-hour period. One
megawatt of electricity can serve approximately 800 to 1,000 homes.
Summer heat is responsible for electric power system peaks in New York as air conditioners that increase
overall power usage are called upon to counteract rising temperatures. While the electricity system must be
prepared to address peak load conditions, average demand is typically far less.
The peak forecast is based on normal summer weather conditions, with temperatures in New York City about
95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). If extreme summer weather produces heat waves of 100°F in New York City and
elsewhere, peak demand across the state could increase to approximately 35,900 MW.

The total capacity of power resources available to New York in summer 2015 is expected to be 42,150 MW.
The total includes 39,039 MW of generating capacity from New York power plants; 1,124 MW in demand
response resources (programs under which consumers reduce usage); and 1,987 MW of import capability that
could be used to supply energy from neighboring regions to New York.

A surplus of capacity is available for the state as a whole, but transmission constraints narrow the margins of
supply for downstate regions. However, in response to a new capacity zone implemented for the Lower Hudson
Valley in 2014, approximately 1,000 megawatts of power resources were returned to service in southeastern
New York. The resources include the repowering of the Danskammer Generating Station in Newburgh, New
York, and restored capability at the Bowline Generating Facility in Haverstraw, New York. (NYISO)

Monday, April 6, 2015

From Joseph Henry's discovery of magnetic induction to Thomas Edison's Pearl Street station and Nicola Tesla's alternating current and George Westinghouse's promise to harness the power of Niagara Falls, New York has a long standing legacy of leadership in the electric industry. The Empire State was home to the first electrical grid and as such, has some of the oldest transmission infrastructure in the country.

Unfortunately, New York is not building enough new generation and the transmission infrastructure has been greatly neglected.
More than 80% of New York's high-voltage transmission lines went into service before 1980 and more than 4,700 circuit miles will require replacement within the next 30 years. Upstate New York has a diverse set of generation resources that includes natural gas, nuclear, wind and hydro resources and due to constraints on the existing transmission system, are limited in their ability to satisfy downstate demand.

According to the New York Independent System Operator's 2012 CARIS report, transmission congestion has cost New Yorkers an additional $9.2 billion since 2004. Upgrading New York's aging transmission infrastructure will bolster the reliability of the system, tap upstate's diversified generation resources and allow cheaper, cleaner, more efficient resources to satisfy downstate demand.

Of course NIMBY and professional environmentalist opposition will have to be overcome because they oppose almost all development project proposals.

Within the context of generation and transmission issues, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. was notified Thursday that it lost an appeal in its battle against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding capacity zones. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District upheld FERC's capacity zone, which is located in the Hudson Valley swinging down into New York City. The agency regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil and electricity, according to its website. The changes for Central Hudson customers resulted in a 6-percent increase in residential utility bills and as much as 10 percent for its large industrial customers

New York doesn't have enough capacity, or backup, in its system, FERC argues. If a transmission line goes down there isn't enough energy in the grid to cover it. More backup is needed, according to FERC, and prices were raised as a result to attract generating plants and create more energy within the system. (Buffalo News, 3/21/2015)Poughkeepsie Journal, 4/2/2015)

Monday, March 9, 2015

New York AREA released an issue brief, "The Hidden Taxes in New Yorks' Electric Bills," at an Albany media event with the Business Council of New York State (BCNYS) and the Independent Power Producers of New York. The issue brief details the amount of electricity taxes collected annually by the Empire State and how they harm consumers and small businesses the most.
A big reason is the spate of direct and hidden electricity taxes which account for 25 percent or so of a typical utility bill. Last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that New York residents pay the third highest average retail price for electricity. At 19.26 cents per kilowatt hour, New York residents pay 58 percent more than the national average.

Few taxes are as regressive as those on electricity usage. Electricity is vital to everyone’s quality of life and living
without it is life threatening. Poor New Yorkers on a limited income are most disproportionately impacted by these taxes.

Using data from various government agencies, the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance very conservatively estimates that New Yorkers pay at least $1.6 billion annually in electricity taxes, or approximately $75 every year for every man, woman, and child in our
state.
At the state level, utilities are taxed on both net income and 2 percent of gross receipts from residential distribution, providing the state with two bites at the tax apple. Reducing energy taxes should start with the repeal of the gross receipts
tax (GRT), as this will benefit all New Yorkers. This is the single most direct step state government can take to reduce the cost of energy for New York consumers, as every residential utility customer pays this 2 percent tax. The GRT has proven lucrative to the State of New York, and last year was no exception, with the state reporting $162 million [ iv ] in revenue from this tax. The 18-a surcharge is a prime example of how an electricity tax can quickly get out of control. Its original purpose was to fund the operations of the New York Public Service Commission at a 0.33 percent cost to ratepayers. At the height of the financial crisis, it quintupled to 2 percent on all electricity bills to plug Albany’s budget gaps.
Conclusion and Recommendations
With New Yorkers’ electricity rates and taxes high, particularly because of the frigid and brutal winter, several steps should be taken immediately.• The Gross Receipts Tax should be cut by at least 50
percent this year and repealed next year.• The 18-a assessment should be permanently capped at
a rate not to exceed 0.33 percent.• The Public Service Commission should only support
new generation and transmission projects that are
market competitive and fully disclose the taxpayer
subsidies that have financed and are financing various
energy projects.
About the Authors:

Jerry Kremer

Rich Thomas

Arthur “Jerry” Kremer, former chairman of the New York Assembly Ways and Means Committee, is chairman
and Richard Thomas is Executive Director of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (New York AREA). Founded
in November 2003, New York AREA is a diverse group of more than 150 business, labor, and community groups whose mission and
purpose is to ensure an ample and reliable electricity supply and economic prosperity for years to come.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

New Yorkers pay double the price of natural gas than New England consumers. Reuters reports LNG imports played crucial role in lower prices

By Richard Thomas

A recent Reuters articleoutlines the critical role liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports played in helping New England avert “panic premium” prices similar to what consumers experienced during last year’s polar vortex. The fall in oil prices also provided much needed relief, allowing dual fuel units to switch to oil to keep the grid reliable.

Reuters reported that ISO New England said, “79 oil and dual-fuel units able to burn both gas and oil bought about 4.5 million barrels of oil. In addition, six gas units bought fuel from LNG terminals that bring gas in from overseas as part of the current winter reliability program.”

Thomson Reuters Analytics found that LNG Imports into the Algonquin-hub quadrupled, bringing the price of natural gas down to an average of $17.73 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) from $22.50 MMBtu last February, a 21 percent decrease. The savings are welcome news to ratepayers who are buried in mountains of snow during one of the coldest winters on record.

Ignoring the benefits of LNG would be a major economic and environmental mistake for New York. The natural gas price difference between New York and New England this winter offers a striking contrast. For example, the Boston region has access to LNG, and Long Island/New York City does not. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the price of natural gas on Transco-6 hub serving New York spiked to $38.15 MMBtu on Wednesday, February 18, 2015, which is double New England’s average of $17.73 MMBtu. (See above EIA images on natural gas prices across regions.) This translates into New Yorkers paying more for a product that is essentially cheaper in a similar region.

Opponents to projects like Port Ambrose, a deep-water natural gas import terminal 18.5 miles off the coast of Long Beach, offer no credible alternative to powering or heating our homes during harsh winter weather. The silent majority of ratepayers cannot afford to continue paying double the price for natural gas because a vocal minority is holding progress hostage. The fact is Port Ambrose will reduce the price of natural gas in downstate New York by tapping into existing pipelines on the seafloor, creating over $300 million in annual savings for consumers, hundreds of jobs for the local economy, and a resilient energy infrastructure.

In terms of the environment, though natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is the cleanest between oil and coal. Given pipeline constraints headed into the northeast, the New York Independent System Operator recently ordered power plants on Long Island and New York City to prepare to switch to oil when electric prices eclipsed $1,000 per megawatt hour on February 19, 2015.

These issues should not be overlooked or underestimated as hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers struggle with respiratory challenges daily. And our modern/mobile lives depend upon the reliable flow of electricity. The bottom line is New York needs to address its energy challenges to benefit all consumers. Moving forward with Port Ambrose is among the right choices for New York’s economy and environment.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Today, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the release of the New York City Panel on Climate Change’s 2015 report, Building the Knowledge Base for Climate Resiliency, focused on increasing the current and future resiliency of communities, citywide systems, and infrastructure around New York City and the broader metropolitan region.

The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) is an independent body that advises the City on climate risks and resiliency. As the best available data, NPCC science informs the City’s comprehensive climate policies, including its multilayered, citywide resiliency plan and sweeping sustainability initiatives—in line with President Obama’s recent Executive Order. The NPCC worked in partnership with the City, including with the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, the Mayor’s Office of Operations, and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Today’s NPCC report provides climate projections through 2100 for the first time, for temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise, representing advancement in the science. New topics covered in the report also include public health, with a focus on extreme heat events and coastal storms and enhanced dynamic coastal flood modeling, which incorporate the effects of sea level rise.

The full report—Building the Knowledge Base for Climate Resiliency: New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report.

The City is announcing today new progress as it implements a comprehensive resiliency plan based on the NPCC’s science, including the kickoff of scoping and preliminary design work on the Lower East Side integrated flood protection system, the launch of the first-ever comprehensive regional analysis of New York City’s food supply chain resiliency, key steps forward to combat the urban heat island effect, and the start of an approximately $100 million shoreline investment program to protect the most vulnerable waterfront communities.

Additionally, Mayor de Blasio will launch NPCC3, which will build on today’s report, and, in particular, look at climate risks through the lens of inequality at a neighborhood scale in a report due early next year. NPCC3 will also focus on ways to enhance coordination of mitigation and resiliency across the entire New York metropolitan region.

In addition to providing climate projections through 2100, NPCC2’s new content today includes:

New coastal flood risk maps to the end of the century for the current 100-year (1 percent annual chance of occurrence) and 500-year (0.2 percent annual chance of occurrence) coastal flood events.

A review of key issues related to climate change health risks relevant to the citizens of New York City.

A process for enhancing a New York City Climate Resiliency Indicators and Monitoring System.

Key Recommendations and City Action

The City is announcing new progress on a number of key projects, including:

The launch of scoping and preliminary design work on the Lower East Side to implement a $335 million integrated, neighborhood-sensitive flood protection system to mitigate risk and help connect the community with the waterfront. This project, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Rebuild by Design competition, runs from East 23rd Street to Montgomery Street and is intended to be just the first phase of a larger project that will ultimately provide coastal resiliency for all of Lower Manhattan. To that end, the City has already allocated additional funds to advance planning and preliminary design south of Montgomery Street.

The Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR), partnering with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), has also launched the first-ever, comprehensive regional resiliency analysis of New York City’s food supply chain network. The study will examine key distribution assets both locally and in surrounding jurisdictions, examine regional transportation routes, and work with the city’s food community to help ensure continuity of operations during a disaster.

To combat the urban heat island effect, as of the end of 2014, NYC Cool Roofs has coated over six million square feet of building roofs with reflective paint to address the climate change risks associated with urban heat. The City’s recent green buildings plan commits to coating at least one million square feet a year more to continue mitigating the urban heat island effect and provide energy savings in affordable housing, public buildings, and non-profit organizations. ORR has also convened urban heat island experts to advance research and understanding on this issue, and continues to focus its heat response protocols on vulnerable populations.

ORR and NYCEDC have also launched an approximately $100 million shoreline investment program to protect the most vulnerable waterfront communities, including Coney Island Creek and Staten Island’s South Shore, and other low-lying parts of the city that will be evaluated as part of the first phase of work. This will include a nine-month first phase to identify and prioritize approximately 43 miles of at-risk shoreline, following by design and construction of site-specific resiliency measures that might include bulkhead upgrades, revetment installation, and living shoreline treatments.

The City has already implemented short-term measures to immediately reduce risk. For example:

4.15 million cubic yards of sand placed on city beaches.

26,000 linear feet of dunes on Staten Island alone, with additional dunes on the Rockaway peninsula.

10,500 linear feet of bulkhead repairs around the city.

Updated building and zoning codes, including 16 new local laws to improve residential and commercial resiliency.

$1 billion in resiliency investments being made by ConEd to harden critical assets like substations and other critical distribution equipment.

Reforms to FEMA’s national flood insurance program, critical flood insurance affordability studies, and education efforts for homeowners across the city.

Additional longer-term measures are being advanced all across the entire city, including but not limited to:

Over $450 million to construct new armored levees and other infrastructure along Midland Beach and Staten Island’s East Shore, to substantially reduce risk in the future, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State.

Substantial investment in the next phase of coastal protection in the Rockaways and the communities surrounding Jamaica Bay, in partnership with the Army Corps and State.

T-groins and beach nourishment in Sea Gate, on which ground was broken on Saturday, in partnership with the Army Corps and the State.

Dunes and other coastal protection in Breezy Point.

Integrated flood protection system measures in Red Hook.

Over $15 million in natural infrastructure resiliency projects funded by the Department of Interior in Jamaica Bay, the Bronx River, and elsewhere.

Additional coastal protection projects funded by the federal Rebuild by Design program (in addition to the Lower East Side flood protection system), including:

Agency recovery and resiliency funds to restore and protect critical City agency services like schools, parks, and other facilities.

Major flood and coastal protection studies, including at Coney Island Creek, Gowanus Canal, Southern Manhattan, and Newtown Creek, to evaluate the feasibility of additional tidal barrier and surge barrier investments.

Department of City Planning Resilient Neighborhoods studies to advance land use measures to support the vitality and resiliency of individual communities in the flood zones.

Small business resiliency support, including new resiliency technologies to be applied through the NYC: RISE competition and assistance through Business PREP, a new program to provide small businesses with education and technical support to enhance their resiliency.

The City is also taking dramatic steps to reduce its contributions to climate change, including becoming the largest city in the world to commit to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That commitment kicks off with Mayor de Blasio’s sweeping 10-year green buildings plan, One City: Built to Last, to retrofit public and private buildings, while creating green jobs and generating operational savings. (Office of the Mayor of New York)

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Algonquin Incremental Market Project (Project), proposed by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin).

The proposed Project facilities include the construction and operation of about 37.4 miles of pipeline in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, composed of the following facilities:

replacement of 26.3 miles of existing pipeline with a 16- or 42-inch-diameter pipeline;

extension of an existing loop1 pipeline with about 3.3 miles of additional 12- and 36-inch-diameter pipeline within Algonquin's existing right-of-way; and

installation of about 7.8 miles of new 16-, 24-, and 42-inch-diameter pipeline.

The Project's proposed aboveground facilities consist of modifications to six existing compressor stations, to add a total 81,620 horsepower, in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island and abandonment of four existing compressor units for a total of 10,800 horsepower at one compressor station in New York. Algonquin would also modify 24 existing meter and regulating stations, construct 3 new meter and regulation stations, and remove 1 meter station in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The Project would provide firm transportation service of 342,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to local distribution companies and municipal utilities in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

The EIS was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cooperated in the preparation of the final EIS.

FERC's environmental staff concludes that construction and operation of the Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Algonquin's proposed mitigation measures and plans and the additional measures recommended by the FERC staff in the draft EIS. Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:

About 35 miles (93 percent) of the 37.4 miles of Project pipeline facilities would be within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way.

The majority of the pipeline facilities (70 percent) would replace existing Algonquin pipelines within existing rights-of-way.

Algonquin would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction and operation of the Project by implementing its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Unexpected Contamination Encounter Procedures; Invasive Plant Species Control Plan; Best Drilling Practices Plan; Compensatory Mitigation Plan; Traffic Management Plans for New York and the West Roxbury Lateral; Procedures Guiding the Discovery of Unanticipated Cultural Resources and Human Remains; and Fugitive Dust Control Plan.

Algonquin would utilize the horizontal directional drill method to cross the Hudson and Still Rivers, which would avoid any direct impacts on these resources.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of issuing a letter of concurrent for the AIM Project, which would complete consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

FERC staff would complete the process with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing the regulations at 36 CFR 800 prior to allowing any construction to begin.

FERC staff would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorizations and other approvals during our oversight of an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program.

The FERC Commissioners will take into consideration staff's recommendations when the Commission makes a decision on the Project. (FERC)

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Center New York Director testified before the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration in support of the Liberty Port Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas Project. The project will import natural gas into the United States and will provide diversity in energy delivery. This gas is needed in lower New York and Long Island.

One hearing was held at the Hilton New York JFK Airport Hotel in Jamaica, New York. Approximately 150 union members attended the hearing and expressed their support for the project.

Dan Durett at the January 7, 2015 Hearing

Center New York Director Dan Durett also made a statement at the hearing. Dan provided the Center's local perspective on the project.

Norris McDonald at January 8, 2015 Hearing

Norris McDonald at January 8, 2015 Hearing

The other hearing was held at the Sheraton Eaton Hotel in Eatontown, New Jersey. Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy President Norris McDonald testified before the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration. Approximately 100 union members attended the hearing and expressed their support for the project.

Port Ambrose is a deepwater port consisting of a submerged buoy system for natural gas deliveries that will be located in federal waters approximately 19 miles from the New York shore. Each delivery is expected to provide an average of 400 million cubic feet of natural gas per day – enough to meet the energy needs of 1.5 million homes. The majority of these deliveries will occur during the peak demand periods of winter and summer.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Port Ambrose is a deepwater port consisting of a submerged
buoy system for natural gas deliveries that will be located in federal waters
approximately 19 miles from the New York shore.
Each delivery is expected to provide an average of 400 million cubic
feet of natural gas per day – enough to meet the energy needs of 1.5 million homes.
The majority of these deliveries will occur during the peak demand periods of
winter and summer.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) supplies will arrive at Port
Ambrose via specially designed Shuttle & Regasification Vessels (SRVs).
Once the SRV is connected to the submerged buoy system, the LNG will be
re-gasified on board and natural gas will be transferred into a new twenty-two
mile subsea pipeline that will connect offshore into the existing Transco Lower
New York Bay Lateral pipeline serving Long Island and New York City

The Liberty Port Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas Project will
import LNG that will be delivered from purpose-built LNG regasification vessels
(LNGRVs) or Shuttle & Regasification Vessels (SRVs), vaporized on site and
delivered through subsea manifolds and lateral pipelines to a buried main line
connecting to the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco)
Lower New York Bay Lateral in New York State waters.

On September 28, 2012, Liberty Natural Gas, LLC (Liberty),
submitted an application to the

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) seeking a federal license to construct, own, and operate a deepwater
port for the import and regasification of liquefied natural gas in federal
waters off the coasts of New York and New Jersey

As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

The purpose for licensing LNG
deepwater ports is to provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and
increase energy diversity, while considering impacts on the environment,
safety, and security.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), approved a Hudson Valley “Electric Capacity Zone” that went into effect May 1, despite opposition from elected officials, local municipalities and the state’s own utilities regulator,and the Public Service Commission. Electricity providers in the region said the zone translates to a 6 percent increase on residential bills and a 10 percent increase on industrial bills.

FERC will now have to give quarterly reports on the capacity zone that will include analyses of the effect on ratepayers. The new requirement was baked into the “cromnibus” $1.1 trillion federal spending bill that controversially passed through both houses of Congress last week.

Senator Charles Schumer, announced the new provisions in a news release stating he believes FERC cannot make unilateral decisions that result in unwarranted rate hikes for ratepayers.

The pushback against the zone has been led in the House by Rep. Chris Gibson, a Columbia County Republican, and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a Putnam County Democrat, both of whom have sought to have the zone repealed altogether.

Three state utilities are looking to eliminate the zone and reimburse customers for higher rates, but a federal appeals court has yet to make a decision.

The capacity zone was first proposed in 2011 by the New York Independent System Operator, which suggested designating a zone that makes energy produced in the lower part of the state more valuable as part of an effort to spur construction of new facilities in southeastern New York, which consumes a majority of the state’s energy.

Dutchess-based Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. and Iberdrola USA subsidiaries New York State Electric & Gas Corp. and Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. said in court filings that the zone cost an additional $80 million in its first five months, most of which was paid by consumers and not the electric companies.

The System Operator, though, said the zone has been successful early on in encouraging investment into infrastructure. It had previously predicted that the state’s electric system would not be able to meet demands by 2019, but it noted this month an improvement in the reliability of the grid.

Newburgh’s Danskammer station was scheduled to close, but after the new zone went into effect the new owner of the facility, Danskammer Energy LLC, announced it would refurbish the building and return it to service. Several other companies are planning to return generating stations to service in the region.

The Hudson Valley capacity zone is one of four in the state. It affects some, but not all, customers of Central Hudson, Consolidated Edison, NYSEG and the Orange and Rockland power company. (Westchester County Business Journal, 12/18/2014)

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Governor Andrew Cuomo's environmental commissioner, Joe Martens, and acting Health Commissioner, Howard Zucker have recommended a ban on fracking across the state of New York, citing excessive environmental and health concerns. Governor Cuomo is deferring to their recommendations in making a final decision. A ban would end the state's current six-month moratorium on fracking.

The process of fracking involves shooting a mix of pressurized water, sand and chemicals to split rock formations to release natural gas and so-called tight oil. The widely used, deep-drilling process, combined with horizontal drilling, has resulted in a surge in domestic-energy production.

State and local governments are pushing for bans over the health and environmental concerns, including the potential for earthquakes and the contamination of natural water supplies.

New York sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, which stretches 600 miles along the Appalachian Basin and is rich in natural gas deposits.

The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation will put out a final impact study early next year that will suggest a ban on fracking. Martens will follow the report with an order prohibiting the process. (Fox News, 12/18/2014)